JUDGMENT There was a Government tank by name Periakulam in S.No.639 of Thirukurungkudi village. A plan was attached to the plaint. The said tank was sloping from west to east. At the eastern side of the tank, there was three Pailamadai, through which 720 acres of nanja lands were being irrigated. Apart from that through Kaderi Kal madazi, 93.98 cents of lands were being irrigated. The water was diverted to the tank from Nambi River through Periakulam Kal. The said Kaderikalmadai was situated at a higher level. The full tank capacity was for sixty days. At the full tank level, the Kaderimadaikal would get immersed in water. When the water level recedes in the tank, the water will flow through Kadarimadai. There was a diversion kal near the end of the Periakulam channel, towards south. The said Kaderi sluice was so small and water cannot be drawn to the Kaderimadaikal channel sufficiently. There was a dam or device across the Periakulam channel to divert it to the Kadarimadai. There was a pos-sibility of surplus water in the imaginary Kaderikal that will flow into the tank. In the settlement register 1865 a reference was made as to the above aspect. The said Kaderikal was shown in the rough plan filed along with the plaint. Kaderikalmadai has a measurement of 9 “ x 9”. Ayacutdars are hundred in number and most of them are harijans. The plaintiffs were the representatives of Ayacutdars of Kaderimadaikal Ayacutdars. The defendants 3 and 4 were the representatives of Ayacutdars of Pailamadai No.3. Only for 45 days water impounded in the tank would be available for irrigation. The defendants attempted to remove the imaginary device across the Periakulam Kal. The plaintiffs gave police complaint on 25.8.1983. The second defendant passed an illegal order on 26.8.1983. Another order was also passed by the second defendant illegally on 2.9.1983. Those orders were passed illegally on the basis of peace committee. The plaintiffs gave a petition to the District Collector on 27.8.1983. There was no response. There were riparian rights, which should not be affected. The said orders were passed thereby affecting the rights of the plaintiffs to get usual and accustomed supply of water. The defendants had no right to block the water flowing into the said Kaderikal. Hence there arose a necessity to file a suit for the relief. 3. The second defendant filed a written statement. The said orders were passed thereby affecting the rights of the plaintiffs to get usual and accustomed supply of water. The defendants had no right to block the water flowing into the said Kaderikal. Hence there arose a necessity to file a suit for the relief. 3. The second defendant filed a written statement. It was contended by the second defendant as follows: It is admitted that Periakulam tank was situated in S.No.639 at Thirukkurankudi village. The allegation that the elevation of the tank was sloping from west to east was denied. In all the tanks the sluice portion will naturally be lower than the fore shore of the tank. No Kaderikal as shown in the plaint plan existed inside the tank. It starts from outside the Kaaderimadai sluice. It was denied that the alleged Kaderikal would get submerged when the water level in the tank was full and that the full tank water could be used for 60 days. The averments that the water was taken straight from the Thirukkurankudi Periakulam kal to the alleged Kaderi Kal and the alleged Kaderikal took a diversion inside the tank was false. The settlement register and the village maps would show the falsity of the allegation of the plaintiffs that there was Kaderikal as shown in the plaint plan. Periakulam Kal was only supplying water to the tank and was not running from west to south inside the tank. The allegations that the customary supply of drawal of water from time immemorial from Thirukkurunkudi Periakulam kal by cross bounding and diverting it to the alleged Kaderi Kal were false. No such cross bounding was ever allowed in Thirukkurankudi Periakulamkal. The plaintiffs are not the representatives of the entire ayacutdars of Periakulam tank and Kaderikal ayacut. The averments that the plaintiffs had irrigated their lands taking water directly through the alleged Kaderi Kal and that the Pailamadai ayacutdars tried to remove the cross bund and that D-2 illegally ordered turn system were false. The plaintiffs are not the representatives of the entire ayacutdars of Periakulam tank and Kaderikal ayacut. The averments that the plaintiffs had irrigated their lands taking water directly through the alleged Kaderi Kal and that the Pailamadai ayacutdars tried to remove the cross bund and that D-2 illegally ordered turn system were false. Due to scanty rains, the inflow in the Periakulam Kal was too low and the tank water was not sufficient to supply the entire ayacut under the different four sluices and hence turn system was resorted to after due consultation with the revenue authorities and the representatives of all the ayacutdars under the Periakulam Kal tank of the village and with the consent of all the ayacutdars, orders for turn system was passed. As per the turn system, water was supplied to Kaaderimadai kal ayacutdars and the other ayacutdars. The ayacutdars lands fed by the Kaderimadai Kal was only 93.98 acres whereas the ayacut lands fed by the other sluices on the eastern bund of the Periakulam Tank were 681.51 acres. The said turn system was only temporary and it can be dispensed with, if the water position improves. The said order was passed only after due consideration of all the factors involved in the fair and equitable distribution of water available in the tank and to avoid clashes among the ayacutdars and to prevent breach of peace. The turn system was legal. The plaintiffs have no customary rights or upper riparian rights as alleged by them. No diversion was made by the Pallamadai ayacutdars. As per the plan enclosed by D-2, three sluices were situated in the eastern bund of the tank and they were called as Pallamadai. The fourth sluice was situated on the southern bund of the tank, and the same was called meetumadai. When the tank was full of water, the four sluices were having equal right. When the tank was empty and a little water was flowing through Thirukkurankudi Peria kulam kal into the tank, the four sluices were having equal right for the water flowing in the tank, according to the extent of ayacut lands. There was no upper riparian right for any sluice. Since the plaintiffs seek to interfere in the powers of the second defendant, the suit was not maintainable. There was no upper riparian right for any sluice. Since the plaintiffs seek to interfere in the powers of the second defendant, the suit was not maintainable. Notice under Sec.80 of C.P.C. was not given to the defendant and hence the suit was to be dismissed in limine. There was no cause of action for the suit and thus the suit has to be dismissed. 4. The defendants 3 and 4 filed a written statement with the following allegations. The map filed along with the plaint was not correct. There was no Kaderikal inside the said periakulam tank. Kaderimadai Kal channel begins only after the Kaderimadai sluice. The Periakulam tank was not sloping from west to east. The Kaderimadai was well situated at a lower level to drain the water from periakulam tank. There was no dam or device across the periakulam channel so as to divert the water to Kaderimadai. There was no such device in existence at any time. Kaderimadai Kal was not situated at a higher level. The allegation that the full tank level capacity was for sixty days was not correct. There was no kal inside the tank and hence the allegation that at the full tank level Kaderimadaikai will get immersed in water was false. The allegation that even when the water level recedes in the tank, the water would flow through Kaderimadai sluice would show that Kaderimadai at the time of construction was at lower level and was in a position to draw water from the tank. The allegations that there was a diversion Kal near the end of periakulam channel towards south and another diversion kal from time immemorial were false. It was false to state that kaderi sluice was so small and water could not be drawn to Kaderimadikal channel sufficiently. It was denied that there was a dam or device across the periakulam channel or at the end of it the divert it to the Kaderimadai. It was false to allege that there was a possibility of surplus water in the imaginary Kaderikal that will flow into the tank. There was no reference made in the settlement register 1865 as to the said aspect. It was denied that ayacutdars were hundred in number and that most of them were harijans. The plaintiffs were not representatives of ayacutdars of Kaderimadaikai. There was no reference made in the settlement register 1865 as to the said aspect. It was denied that ayacutdars were hundred in number and that most of them were harijans. The plaintiffs were not representatives of ayacutdars of Kaderimadaikai. These defendants were the office bearers of the irrigation committee of Periakulam Kal, but that was not sufficient to sue them. They have to obtain the ayacutdars consent to represent them in the suit, and they reserve their right to file a separate counter in that regard. It was denied that only for45 days water impounded in the tank would be available for irrigation. The defendants never attempted to remove the imaginary device across the Periakulam Kal. There was a no such device. On the other hand the plaintiffs attempted to obstruct the Periakulam Kal. The plaintiffs were interested in cultivating punja lands and wanted to take water to their lands to which they were not entitled to. Therefore a peace committee was formed and the authorities both revenue and irrigation consulted both the groups and passed orders fixing up a turn system and directed the plaintiffs not to attempt constructing or putting up temporary dams or bunds across the Periakulamkal. The said order was valid. The plaintiffs were estopped from denying the same. The defendants also sent petitions to the police and other officials. The orders passed on 26.8.1983 and 2.9.1983 were all valid and binding. The plaintiffs cannot ask for any mandatory injunction. There were no riparisan rights as alleged. The upper riparian rights and usual and accustomed supply of water were all imaginary. The turn system which was most just and fair could be followed peacefully. Hence, the suit might be dismissed with costs. 5. On the above pleadings the trial Court framed the necessary issues, tried the suit and decreed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred an appeal before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The lower appellate Court after enquiry, modified the judgment of the trial Court. The aggrieved plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal. 6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration by this Court: (1) Whether the lower appellate Court failed to consider the important legal issue viz., the Appellants have been taking water by putting cross bund from the time immemorial thereby acquiring rights by prescription? The aggrieved plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal. 6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration by this Court: (1) Whether the lower appellate Court failed to consider the important legal issue viz., the Appellants have been taking water by putting cross bund from the time immemorial thereby acquiring rights by prescription? (2) Whether the lower appellate Court erred in not properly appreciating the important documents viz., A-7 and A-8 Descriptive Memoir and old settlement Register, Ex. A-9 resettlement register and A-6 the order of the Tahsildar and Exs.A-2 and A-3 orders passed by the second respondent? 7. The appellants herein representing for themselves and representing the ayacutdars of Thirukurankudikaderikal filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/ defendants restraining them from in any way interfering with the appellants/ plaintiffs taking water as per the usual and accustomed supply from Thirukkurankudi Periakulam either by removing the cross bunds or by fixing the turn supply during the period of low water level. On contest the trial Court agreeing with the contentions of the appellants’ side granted the relief as prayed for. While the said judgment was appealed against by the defendants 1 and 2, the lower appellate Court had modified the relief of permanent injunction granted by the lower Court. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs have come forward with this second appeal while the Government has brought forth the cross objection. 8. While the said judgment was appealed against by the defendants 1 and 2, the lower appellate Court had modified the relief of permanent injunction granted by the lower Court. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs have come forward with this second appeal while the Government has brought forth the cross objection. 8. Arguing for the appellants, the learned counsel Mr.Peppin Fernando would submit that the trial Court after full and thorough consideration of both oral and documentary evidence has granted the relief as asked for by the appellants; that the First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration either the oral or the documentary evidence nor has it discussed the same, but has modified the relief without adducing any proper reason therefore that the appellants were entitled to have customary right to take water to their field through Kaderikal directly from the Periyakulam supply channel; that when there was scarcity of water, the ayacutdars of Kaderipathu had right to take water by putting cross bunds; that this right to take water by cross bunds had been recognised by the State in view of the several documents produced by the appellants; that in Ex.A-7, the descriptive memorior and 1864 settlement it has been stated "This Village is irrigated by a tank supplied by the Thirukurankudikal channel from the first anaicut on the Nambiyar River, which also irrigates direct certain tracts of the village through the Kaderimadai sluice when the tank water falls too low to enter the sluice"; that the lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the fact that Kaderikal is in higher level about 10 feet height; and hence the water can be taken to Kaderikal only by cross bund and the cross bund was made only with consent and not by any pucca construction; that the evidence of D.W. 1 would clearly show that water will flow into Kaderikal only if cross bund was dene; that it has to be pointed out that Exs. A-5 and A-6 were documents issued by the State and hence it would be binding on the respondents 1 and 2; that the appellants were taking water during the time when there was less water only after putting the cross bund from time immemorial; that the lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the report of the Commissioner and his plan marked as Exs.C-1, and C-2; that there was no sufficient cause to set aside the well considered judgment of the trial Court as far as the rights of the appellants to take water to Kaderikal by putting sand across bunds when there was scarcity of water and hence the judgment of the First Appellate Court has got to be set aside and the judgment of the trial Court has got to be restored. 9. 9. Arguing for the respondents 1 and 2 and cross-objectors, the learned Government Advocate Mr.Shivashanmugam would submit that the trial Court was in error in granting the relief of permanent injunction as asked for buy the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court has rightly held that the appellants were not entitled to put up any cross bund and hence it should have held that there was no channel as Kaderikal as shown in the plan by the appellants; that it is pertinent to note that there was no bifurcated separate channel leading to Kaderimadai within the Periyakulam tank; that both the Courts below have wrongly understood the endorsement ‘Kal and ‘Kulam’ as the permanent double source for irrigation of the appellants’ lands as per Exs.A-2 and A-9; that the First Appellate Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that there was branch channel from periakulam and the said channel was called Kaderi channel through which Kaderimadai was entitled to get water, that both the lower Courts have erred in stating that the village map was wrong for not showing the Kaderikal inside the tank on the basis of the Commissioner’s report and plan; that both the Courts were in error in placing too much importance to the Commissioner’s report and plan; when the village map was available; that the First Appellate Court had placed undue reliance and importance to the Commissioner’s report and plan and has come to the conclusion that a channel was bifurcating from Periakulam channel and that channel was going upto Kaderimadai; that both the lower Courts have not taken into consideration that the defendants 1 and 2 have got every right to distribute water under Board’s standing orders; that the defendants 1 and 2 had no interest to support either the plaintiffs or the defendants 3 and 4; that the orders under Exs.A-2 and A-3 were only temporary arrangements to distribute the available water among all the ryots who were legally entitled to water; that the First Appellate Court has wrongly concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled for the upper riparian right; that whenever there was shortage of water, there arose fight among the plaintiffs and the defendants 3 and 4 in the earlier occasions also and the Tahsildar had passed necessary orders after compromise; that similarly orders were passed under Exs. A-2 and A-3 after moving with all the parties to settle the dispute amicably; that the finding of the lower Courts that the orders passed under Exs.A-2 and A-3 were not legal was not correct; that it has to be pointed out that the defendants 1 and 2 have got moral duty to distribute the available water to all the ryots who were depending upon the said source of irrigation; that the reasons assigned by the lower appellate Court in support of its judgment are not sound. Added further the learned Government Advocate that the First Appellate Court without proper discussion of evidence oral and documentary has modified the relief of permanent injunction granted by the lower Court and instead it should have dismissed the suit in entirety and hence the second appeal has got to be dismissed and the cross objection has got to be allowed. 10. The appellants herein filed a suit seeking for permanent injunction to restrain the State represented by the respondents 1 and 2 and Pallamadai ayacutdars represented by the respondents 3 and 4 from interfering with the riparian right in getting usual and accustomed supply of water to their lands. 10. The appellants herein filed a suit seeking for permanent injunction to restrain the State represented by the respondents 1 and 2 and Pallamadai ayacutdars represented by the respondents 3 and 4 from interfering with the riparian right in getting usual and accustomed supply of water to their lands. According to the appellants, from the pleading and the evidence, it could be seen that there was a Government tank by name Periakulam in survey No.639 of Thirukkurankudi village; that on the eastern side of the tank there were three pallamadai through which 720 acres of nanja lands were irrigated and through Kaderikal madai 93.98 cents of lands were irrigated; that from Nambi river the water was diverted to the tank through Periakulam Kal; that the kaderikalmadai was situated at a higher level; that when there was full tank capacity, the said Kaderimadai Kal would get immersed in water, but when the water level was low in the tank, the water will flow only through Kaderimadai; that there was a diversion Kal near the ends of periakulam channel towards south and since the Kaderi sluice was so small, water could not be drawn to the Kaderimadai channel sufficiently and there was a device across the periakulam channel to divert it into the Kaderi madai; that there was a reference in 1865 settlement register in that regard; that the ayacutdars of pallamadai attempted to remove the device across the Periakulam Kal; the the second defendant has passed two illegal orders on 26.8.1983 and 2.9.1983, which have thoroughly affected the riparian rights of the appellants to get the usual and accustomed supply of water and the defendants had no right to block the usual water flow into the said Kaderikal. In order to substantiate their claim, at the time of trial, the appellants examined the second plaintiff as P.W.1 and one Paul Devaraj as P.W.2 and marked 9 documents as Exs.A-1 to A-9. This claim of the appellants ayacutdars of pallamadai No.3 contending that it is true that periakulam tank was situated in survey No.639 of Thirukkurankudi village, but it is not correct to state that the tank was sloping from west to east; that no Kaderikal as contended by the plaintiffs ever existed inside the tank; but it started only from outside the Kaderimadai sluice. It was further contended by the respondents that the case of the appellants that the said Kaderikal would get submerged when the tank was full of water and it can be used only for 60 days; that the water was taken from Thirukkurankudi Periakulam Kal to the alleged kaderikal and there was a diversion inside the tank were all false. Contending that there was no kaderikal as shown in the plaint plan and the Periakulam Kal was not running from west to east, the defendants relied on the settlement register and the village map. It was contended by the respondents’ side that there was no cross bunding at all at any point of time, nor was it ever allowed in Thirukkurankudi Periakulam Kal and the appellants have come with the false case to state that they had accustomed supply of water from time immemorial from Periakulam Kal by cross bunding and diverting it to the kaderikal. According to the respondents when the tank water was not sufficient to supply the entire ayacutdars under the four sluices, there arose a necessity to resort to the turn system. It is also further contended by the respondents’ side that the appellants cannot question Exs.A-2 and A-3 for the turn system, since they were passed after the due consultation with the revenue authorities and the representatives of the ayacutdars and with their consent also and that only when the turn system is followed, all the lands of all the ayacutdars would be irrigated. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the turn system was legal and was to be followed in the larger interest of the society and that the ayacutdars’ lands fed by Kaderimadai Kal was only nearly 100 acres whereas the ayacutdars’ lands irrigated by the other sluices of the periakulam tank were nearly 700 acres. In short it is contended by the respondents’ side that the plaintiffs had no customary rights or upper riparian rights and the turn system in order to irrigate the lands of all the ayacutdars was necessary. In order to substantiate their contention, the State examined one Edwin Thangaraj as D. W. 1, the third defendant as D.W.2 and one Madasamy Achari as D.W.3 and they relied on Exs.B-1 to B-3 documents. 11. In order to substantiate their contention, the State examined one Edwin Thangaraj as D. W. 1, the third defendant as D.W.2 and one Madasamy Achari as D.W.3 and they relied on Exs.B-1 to B-3 documents. 11. During the pendency of the suit in the trial Court, an advocate Commissioner was appointed who after due notice and inspection filed his report and plan marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2 in the trial Court. Admittedly there was a government tank called periakulam in survey No.639 of Thirukkurankudi village and on the eastern side of the tank there were three pallamadai and one situated on the southern side. The appellants filed a plan along with the plaint, the contents of which were disputed by the respondents. The appellants have much relied on Ex.A-7 and 1865 settlement register. The trial Court in view of the Commissioner’s report and plan has found the documents relied on by the State were defective and could not support their contention. When the appellants sought the relief of permanent injunction, they have specifically stated that they should be allowed to exercise their riparian right to take water with the usual and accustomed supply and the other ayacutdars represented by respondents 3 and 4 should be restrained from removing the cross bunds. Pointing to Ex.A-7 descriptive memorior and 1865 settlement, the learned counsel for the appellants would state that the Kaderikal was in a higher level about 10 feet height and hence water could be taken to kaderikal only by cross bunding. The contention of the appellants’ side that the cross bund was made up only with sand and not by any pucca construction is disputed by the respondents. But they would say that no cross bunds were placed at any point of time in the past and if placed, it would be detrimental to and infring- ing the rights of the other ayacutdars to irrigate their lands. It is conceded by the State that the turn system was followed when there was insufficiency of supply of water, and without resorting to the turn system, there could not be proper supply to Kaderimadai Kal ayacutdars and other ayacutdars to irrigate their fields. There was no sufficiency of water supply to entire ayacutdars under the sluices. It is conceded by the State that the turn system was followed when there was insufficiency of supply of water, and without resorting to the turn system, there could not be proper supply to Kaderimadai Kal ayacutdars and other ayacutdars to irrigate their fields. There was no sufficiency of water supply to entire ayacutdars under the sluices. It is also admitted by the Stated that the second defendant passed orders on 26.8.1983 and 2.9.1983 respectively only in consultation and with consent of all the ayacutdars and those orders were necessary in view of the equitable distribution of water resources available in the tank. The abovesaid turn system and the orders passed by the second defendant are challenged by the appellants contending that they have caused infringement over the riparian rights. When all those contentions were raised before the trial Court, the trial Court after elaborate discussion of the oral and documentary evidence has granted the relief. It is pertinent to note that when the said judgment of the trial Court was challenged before the lower appellate Court, the judgment of the lower appellate Court has resulted in the second appeal by the appellants and the cross-objection by the respondents 1 and 2. 12. Both the counsel appearing for respective parties would urge that the lower appellate Court though modified the relief of permanent injunction granted in favour of the appellants, has neither settled the points for determination properly nor analysed the evidence nor arrived at any correct conclusion in the matter. A readings of the First Appellate Court’s judgment would clearly indicate that it has neither considered the evidence nor adduced reasons either to grant the permanent injunction in favour of the appellants or for modification of the same. It is true that the lower appellate Court has summarised the submissions of the respective counsel. But a perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court would indicate that without any consideration of the available materials, it has arrived at a conclusion granted by the trial Court. What has been done by the lower appellate Court was a mere affirmation of a part and denial of the other part of the findings of the trial Court without any analysis and consideration of the available evidence. What has been done by the lower appellate Court was a mere affirmation of a part and denial of the other part of the findings of the trial Court without any analysis and consideration of the available evidence. It cannot be disputed that the First Appellate Court has clearly set out the case of the plaintiffs, the pleas in defence and the findings of the trial Court, but it has neither settled the point for determination correctly nor arrived at the decisions thereon with its reasons. 13. The Division Bench of this Court has held in a decision reported in KMM.Kadar Hussain v. OMR.Selvaraj and two others, (1997)1 C.T.C. 559 , as follows: “We have gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge. We are of the view that the judgment is defective, in that the learned Judge has not followed the provisions under O.41, Rule 31, C.P.C. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, it is also incumbent on the part of the appellate Court to raise points for determination just to clear up the pleadings and focus the attention of the Court and of the parties on the specific and rival contentions, which arose for decision. One of us (AR.Lakshmanan, J.) sitting single, in Kannammal v. Kuppanna Gounder, (1996)2 M.L.J. 550 , following a Division Bench of this Court in Visalakshi Ammal v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal, (1989)2 L. W. 414 and for the reasons stated in the order, has set aside the judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore and remitted back the matter to the said Court, to dispose of the appeal afresh on merits and in accordance with law and after affording opportunity to both the parties, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The same view was taken by this Bench in the judgment dated 27.2.1997 rendered by us in Palanisami Pillai v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department, Madras-34 and another, L.P.A. No.16 of 1993. In that case, similar contention was raised before us. The same view was taken by this Bench in the judgment dated 27.2.1997 rendered by us in Palanisami Pillai v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department, Madras-34 and another, L.P.A. No.16 of 1993. In that case, similar contention was raised before us. While considering the said submission, this Bench has observed in paragraph 12 of the judgment as follows: ”The object of O.12, Rule 31, C.P.C. in making it incumbent upon the appellate Court to raise the points for determination and to state reasons for the decision is to clear up the pleadings and focus the attention of the Court and of the parties on the specific and rival contentions which arise for determination as also to offer the litigant parties an opportunity of knowing and understanding the grounds upon which the decision proceeds with a view to enable them to exercise, if they see fit, and are so advised, the right of second appeal conferred by Sec.100, C.P.C. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned single Judge, it appears to us that the reasons for his findings would not satisfy O.41, C.P.C. This Court being the First Appellate Court, and being the final Court of facts, it is incumbent on it it consider all the evidence adduced by the parties in the case. Learned single Judge has not even turned to the side of the plaintiffs who filed voluminous documents marked as Exs.A-1 to A-33. The parties to the suit or appeal, in our opinion, have a right to know the reasons that have led the Judge to his conclusions. The learned single Judge (Bellie, J.) has not considered any facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced both oral and documentary by both sides, but merely recorded a finding by accepting the evidence of D. W. 1 and without himself bestowing any consideration thereon, it can surely be said that this is not a judgment in the eye of law. In the instant case, the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is exhaustive and well reasoned. The learned single Judge when he reversed the judgment, there should be enough material to show that the Court of appeal has considered it fully and formed its own opinion. In the present judgment, there is no discussion at all about the documentary evidence filed and marked as Exs.A-1 to A-33. The learned single Judge when he reversed the judgment, there should be enough material to show that the Court of appeal has considered it fully and formed its own opinion. In the present judgment, there is no discussion at all about the documentary evidence filed and marked as Exs.A-1 to A-33. The law imposes upon the Court of Appeal the imperative duty and obligation of giving an adequate and satisfactory judgment such as is required by law and it is the duty to explain its reasons for so doing more especially when the Court of first instance has gone so fully into the facts and the reasons for the conclusions arrived at. “ Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge and remit the matter to another learned single Judge of this Court for consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced by both the parties, both oral and documentary. As observed by us, the law imposes upon the Court of appeal the imperative duty and obligation of giving an adequate and satisfactory judgment as is required by law and it is the duty of the Court to explain its reasons for so doing, more especially when the Court of first instance has gone so fully into the facts and the reasons for the conclusions arrived at.” 14. The Honourable Apex Court in a case reported in State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh, (Dead) through His L.Rs., (2000)5 S.C.C. 652 , has held thus: “A close scrutiny of the judgment of the First Appellate Court shows that there was no due or proper application of mind or any critical analysis or objective consideration of the matter made, despite the same being the First Appellate Court. On the other hand, by merely reproducing the finding of the trial Court a mechanical affirmation seems to have been made of them without any reference to the principles of law or the criteria to be satisfied before the claim of the plaintiff of perfection of title by adverse possession could be sustained, involving correspondingly destruction of title of the state in respect of a public property.” From the judgment of the First Appellate Court it is more explicit that it has neither considered the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court nor had applied its mind and focused its attention on the specific and rival contentions which arose for decision. When an imperative duty and an obligation is cast upon the Court of appeal viz., the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court, it being the final Court of facts, is duty bound to apply its mind independently afresh on the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court and to explain its reasons for the findings and conclusions arrived at. In the instant case the judgment of the First Appellate Court is a glaring example of non-application of mind and approach of the imperative duty imposed on it by the mandatory provision under 0.41, Rule 31, C.P.C.. Without any critical analysis or objective consideration of the matter on hand, the First Appellate Court has merely reproduced the findings of the trial Court and has made a mechanical affirmation without exercising the due care to follow the principles of law in O.41, Rule 31. Needless to say that the judgment of the First Appellate Court, under the aforestated circumstances, is defective and hence without any hesitation whatsoever, the judgment of the First Appellate Court has got to be set aside, but has to remit the matter back to the First Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal afresh on merit and in accordance with law and after affording reasonable opportunity to both parties and interest of justice would also require the same. 15. 15. In the result, both the second appeal and the cross-objection are allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and the matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh on merits and in accordance with law and after affording opportunity to both the parties within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to the costs. Appeal allowed.